About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
other point that i want to make and that is that my understanding is tomorrow is representative boehner's birthday. for those who want to wish him a happy birthday, we're not going to embarrass him with a cake because we didn't know how many candles were needed -- >> yeah, right. >> but we do want to wish him a happy birthday. >> thank you. >> thank you, everybody. appreciate it. >> house and senate leaders spoke briefly to reporters. >> good morning, everyone. we had a very constructive meeting with the president to talk about america's fiscal problem. i outlined a framework that deals with reforming our tax code and reforming our spending. i believe that the framework that i have outlined in our meeting today is consistent with the president's call for a fair and balanced approach. to show our seriousness, we have put revenue on the table as long it's accompanied by significant spending cuts. while we're going to continue to have revenue on the table, it's going to be incumbent for my colleagues to show the american people that we're serious about cutting spending and solving our fisc
tax increases one way or another. bill: do you think that flies in the u.s. house? does john boehner have the votes to match that? >> the white house figures he will portray himself as the chapel yofnt middle class and the republicans are going out for the rift and he feels he can largely beat hem into submission. when they sit down to the bargaining table they might make some changes but he will want to come out of these negotiations as having largely won them and leaving scraps for the republicans. what the republicans have to hit back with is the way you increase revenues is by having rising incomes. you don't get that by higher taxes on a weakening economy. bill: the president plans to open the talks using his most recent budget proposal. wasn't that the budget that got zero votes in the senate? >> he's going to exploit it for all it's worth. you could come to an agreement using bowles and simpson and reducing rates so everyone declares victory. you have got more revenue but the rates don't go up. but i don't think the president is interested in that. if you had normal people doi
to bottom here. it's just that there's not as many. >> if you saw a headline, boehner-obama to agree to long-term solution, you would hit buy first on com? >> we no longer have to worry about rising above? >> i think we'll see that as a joke. >> only up 3% to 5% between now and tuesday. that's not their focus. >> i understand. >> but remember when germany went down, when the german forces went down. those are countries that are dominated by rich people. a lot of those companies are plutocrasies. i think when their market went down, they said holy cow, maybe we ought to do something, maybe monty ought to get together, our country t.a.r.p., that first vote, i think people said, okay, i'm going to have to work the rest of my life, there goes my 401(k) and the congressmen rise above. i hope it doesn't take that. i hope it didn't. >> we do have some media news today, viacom is out with some numbers. >> viacom is not as bad as i had feared. the market numbers down about 6% for the company which is perhaps a little bit better than might have been expected. if you take a look over the last few weeks
of influence in terms of those races. before hand, speaker boehner had a hard time getting some of his more conservative members to buy in to certain concrete hiatt -- compromises. going forward, we will have to see if the tea party conservatives will seem to have the same support. the president now has the upper hand and when he talks to speaker boehner he will have to take that message back and he gets a little bit more behind him. >> week and a shop with a meeting between the leaders and the white house. what is the dynamic? >> it will be very interesting to see. hopefully we will hear from them exactly what their conversation was with the president. it is unlikely that we're going to see a detailed agreement on specific issues. are we going to hear about tax breaks or how entitlement reform is going to happen in the deal? on not sure. these figures are going to be out there. they're all going to be scrambling to set the tone in the way that they want to set it. of they will have discussions like the democratic leaders also say let these are the areas where we made clear to republican le
in the senate. john boehner is serious about doing something. it will not work if the president does not lead. the president has to set the course. you saw that in the legislation i was part of. the big question will be whether this president stepped up and leads. >> on the one hand, you use the word opportunity. you see that ceos are saying they are investing in hiring. there are remarkably more worried in europe and some of these other problems we're talking about. >> look at this. this is a more imminent. it tells me there is an opportunity. the primary barrier to getting a grand bargain has been an opposition to any revenues in the deal. the reason why there are not specific papers you can read and see what was the dl is precisely because thing started showing up and bob woodward's book. each side feels they did not want to write down i read you this and you offer me this. it was totally understood. people have been doing deals with the congress and the executive for 225 years. few other people have figured out how to do it. i would not pick the president diminishing his value. that does
. john boehner still in the house for the time being at the treasury. the president is back in the white house and harry reid is in the senate with a few more seats. why should i believe this would end any more positively than the summer of 2011? >> because again i'm not going to try to talk to you in optimism but let's look at what's changed. you have republican leadership acknowledging for the first time in this debate in public that it's agreed to increase in revenues as part of an agreement that helps restore fiscal balance. that's a very important change. you can debate on what motivated that change, and of course it's true that approach has been a popular very substantial support among the american people. you have a much greater recognition that the economy would benefit on a carefully designed balanced agreement on fiscal reform and putting it off indefinitely is not good for the country. that's important, too. and i also think again if you listen carefully to what people are saying and what many politicians are saying with many elected representatives are saying there's a lot of
that we've seen since the election, whether it's from the president or the house speaker john boehner, but i can tell you in talking to sources privately on both sides of the aisle, they admit that it's all about positioning and posturing to make sure at the end of the day if we do go off the fiscal cliff that they're not blamed for it. they're the ones who looked reasonable, not unreasonable, and they're preparing for the other side to blame them for the opposite, if that makes sense. that's a lot of what you are saying in public. the reality is that neither side has a really clear machine date or clear vote and no one wants to look at the end of the day like they never gave compromise a chance. listen to republican bob corker, though, because there does seem to be a little bit of a crack on the republican side on whether or not it's okay to raise some taxes. >> i think there is a deal. the ying and yang is we know there has to be revenues, and i think -- look, i haven't met a wealthy republican or democrat in tennessee that's not willing to contribute more as long as they know we so
.6 would be 1.5 to 1, when he was with boehner, 800, wanted another 4. >> you were in the room so you know. >> first of all, since we talk about bowles-simpson so much, bowles-simpson has a 1:1 ratio. >> it doesn't. >> i thought it's 1:4. >> it's 1:3. >> in the way the bowles-simpson frame was put out something people didn't realize was that in terms of the revenue number they weren't counting the expiration of the high income tax cuts which they proposed to get rid of. apples to apples, in terms of the way people are currently adding up their math, it's approximately a 1:1 ratio. >> erskine bowles said you should look at 3:1 in terms of spending cuts to revenue. >> i'm just saying what was in bowles-simpson. >> let's not forget about growth, we need to stimulate growth and a lot of it on the innovation side. >> david thank you, appreciate it i put away money. i was 21, so i said, "hmm, i want to retire at 55." and before you know it, i'm 58 years old. time went by very fast. it goes by too, too fast. ♪ but i would do it again in a heartbeat. [ laughs ] ♪ ♪ . >>> welcome back, everyb
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)